How rumors of Dead Space’s death may have been greatly exaggerated

Anonymous sources, confused PR, and the odd life of a short-lived claim.

Is Isaac jumping for cover or falling lifelessly to the ground? More importantly, who's to say?

EA / Visceral

In the video game industry, there are four basic steps to rumors leaking out before an official announcement by a developer or publisher:

Outlet gets a tip from a source who wishes to remain anonymous

Outlet reaches out to the company's public relations to get a comment on the rumor (this step is technically optional, but it happens more often than not these days)

The publisher or developer says, "We don't comment on rumor and speculation."

Outlet publishes the story, and it spreads throughout the Internet.

This pattern is so incredibly common that it was actually noteworthy when EA apparently added a fifth step to the pattern for a recent rumor regarding the Dead Space series:

The publisher vociferously denies the rumor it previously refused to comment on (this almost never happens).

Here's what happened. Yesterday morning, VideoGamer.com published a report citing "a source familiar with the unannounced project" who said that Visceral Games' work on Dead Space 4 had been cancelled after Dead Space 3 sales came in beneath EA's internal expectations (official sales numbers have not yet been released for the game, but it is selling relatively poorly according to British sales reports). The report included the perfunctory "EA told VideoGamer.com that it does not comment on rumor or speculation." It included some circumstantial supporting evidence, such as a previous public statement from EA's Frank Gibeau that the series would probably need 5 million players to continue. There were also recent reports that the team at Visceral Montreal had been completely laid off.

Usually the rumor would spread out to the Internet like a copied-and-pasted weed from there, and that would be that until it was either confirmed or refuted by the course of actual events. But before the virtual ink on the initial report had begun to dry, EA started to push back hard against this rumor. As VideoGamer.com lays out in a detailed timeline following its first report, EA's first public comment on the matter came through a Gamasutra tweet mere hours after the original piece. "Rumors about poor Dead Space 3 sales and an unannounced Dead Space 4 being cancelled are 'patently false,' EA tells us," the tweet read. "Spread the word!"

Shortly after that tweet (which Gamasutra tells us came from EA's US corporate communications team), EA's UK PR arm decided to issue a public comment after all. "While we have not announced sales of Dead Space 3, we are proud of the game and the franchise remains an important IP to EA.” Later, the US branch of EA's public relations amended the statement to say "These rumours are patently false" and to tell the press that the company "appreciate[s] your help bringing down the baseless rumour." So the company replaced one "no comment" with three strong denials from three different branches of its massive corporate tree—all in a matter of hours.

In response to the rumors, EA released this photo of Isaac alive and well, enjoying a relaxing golf holiday (note: they didn't really).

EA

As if that delayed pushback wasn't enough, EA COO Peter Moore actually took to a comment thread on GamesIndustry.biz to set the record straight. Moore came right out and said that VideoGamer.com had "fabricate[d] a story using an 'unnamed source,'" and he called the entire report "standard, shoddy website journalism recipe, born out of a desperate need to increase click-thru rates to support advertising revenue."

VideoGamer.com, for its part, said it stood by its story and the anonymous source. Today, the site said the source was "an individual whose identity we agreed to protect, but whose background and statements gave us valid reason to trust their claims." The website also stated it waited roughly 22 hours for an official response from EA PR before running the story with the standard "we do not comment on rumor and speculation," which makes the multi-pronged series of denials after the fact even stranger. (VideoGamer.com referred us to their public statements when asked for further comment on the matter. EA has yet to respond to out requests for comment).

Assigning blame

So where does the truth lie in this somewhat confusing back and forth? At this point, we have to believe EA's stringent denials, if for no other reason than the fact that responses of any kind to unsourced rumors like this are so incredibly rare. If there was even a chance that this was true, EA would have likely played it safe and stuck with the standard "no comment." Instead, the company ultimately risked its credibility by denying it.

So the question turns to who to blame for the whole fiasco. Was VideoGamer.com wrong to run its report based on such flimsy information? Did EA make its own bed by failing to get in front of the story when the site gave it the opportunity? Do the many sites that parroted the report without further checks hold any blame?

"Any journalist who has any semblance of critical thinking and knowledge of the game industry needs to think about the core component of this story: that EA is killing Dead Space," Gamasutra Editor-in-Chief Kris Graft told Ars. "Does that not make you go, 'Eh???'"

Graft said the story "smelled like BS" from the minute he saw it, and it only took five minutes and an e-mail to EA's US Corporate Communications department to get the flat denial in Gamasutra's tweet. "It's a major, major core franchise that's also done well on mobile, etc," Graft told us. "They would not kill the entire investment in that franchise so quickly, is what I thought. But yeah, anything's possible!"

Graft acknowledged that it seems like one arm of EA's PR monolith didn't know what the other was doing in crafting the slow and confusing response to the story. But he noted that's no excuse for going with what seems like a wholly inaccurate report. For a story of this magnitude, Graft believes VideoGamer.com shouldn't have just relied on the say-so of one source that seems to have questionable ties to EA.

"They have what, one person saying this? And it doesn't sound like they know who this is. It was a person they apparently deduced (probably wrongfully) had some kind of inside track... Why not reach out to people outside of PR too? There was a failure to verify and that's just basic stuff."

Wherever the bulk of the blame lies, the whole affair goes to show how difficult it can be to trace the provenance of unofficial information in the video game world. Between a reliance on anonymous (and sometimes questionable) sources, confused and contradictory responses from the companies themselves, and the echo chamber that is the Web, the basic facts of a rumor can easily get lost. A reader's best defense is a careful eye for precisely where information is coming from, a good instinct for what's plausible, and a well-developed instinct for who and what to trust.

I don't understand this part of the denial. These things are publicly verifiable using sales figures. There already exist figures showing lower Dead Space 3 sales than previous iterations. Are they seriously implying that the TRACKING is false?

This series of events may show that EA is not "killing" the Dead Space IP in the same way that games are traditionally "killed". Then again, fans of survival horror will tell you that they took the core part of Dead Space out to the forest and killed it about halfway through Dead Space 2, then skinned it and took it and wrapped said skin around a generic shooter.

Dead Space as an IP may continue on. My interest in the series, however, has indeed been killed.

Protection of a source isn't a tool to be used so lightly. It's sickening how grossly overused that type of conduct truly is, especially in today's rag mag-style internet rumor fueled news machine, to the point that it dissolves the real purpose of the journalistic protection shield: to protect people from actual DANGER by providing pertinent, meaningful information that is of demonstrable value to the public at large.

This is why bloggers are still looked at with such disdain. Children like these making a mockery of the core tenets of journalism and shaking the trust that we have for the printed word.

What I find hilarious about this story is that they claim Visceral has been laid off, when they are currently one of the most active studios within EA. EA has been moving IP from studios who have failed them in the past to give Visceral a shot - games like the third Army of Two.

Be a shame because DS3 is actually a damn fun game. This idea that the series went from some sort of pure survival horror to pure action is ridiculous groupthink combined with rabid EA hate. So you have a game that just couldn't win. I feel quite bad for the team at Visceral. Other than the mentally handicapped save system, the game has been great. I was a big fan of the first two, and this alleged big change is just piffle. They added some things (OMG! We must fear change and hate on it!), but the bulk of the game is the good old making your way through dark, claustrophobic areas never knowing what was going to come at you next.

I really hope EA finally learns a lesson from this debacle. Sales are poor because it is barely recognizable as a Dead Space title. I am an avid fan of the original, and enjoyed the second as well, and was really looking forward to finding resolution to story arcs in the third installment. Having been bitten however by EA with the ending ME3 (while an excellent game I still fall within the ardent IT camp) I knew better than to trust EA again.

Why must they insist on fucking with what already has an ardent and loyal fanbase? I am glad that for once people got the message and made EA pay for their meddling with great IP.

Be a shame because DS3 is actually a damn fun game. This idea that the series went from some sort of pure survival horror to pure action is ridiculous groupthink combined with rabid EA hate. So you have a game that just couldn't win. I feel quite bad for the team at Visceral. Other than the mentally handicapped save system, the game has been great. I was a big fan of the first two, and this alleged big change is just piffle. They added some things (OMG! We must fear change and hate on it!), but the bulk of the game is the good old making your way through dark, claustrophobic areas never knowing what was going to come at you next.

Ah groupthink, the easy reply to valid criticisms voiced by many people. I said what I said as a person who enjoyed the first game quite a bit. I even enjoyed the multiplayer in the second to a degree. I've played the demo for the third, tried it on a buddy's system before I bought. It was exactly what I said...generic. There wasn't the focus on the industrial feel of the first, there wasn't a focus on general ambiance of dread. It was a corridor shooter, where you fight generic human baddies alongside (inexplicably) aligned monsters. For Christ's sake, they did the same stupid "all ammo is the same" bullshit that made Deus Ex: Invisible War such a shitty sequel to one of the most complex and amazing games of all time.

Saying that my personal experience is somehow "groupthink", when I really, really wanted to buy and like this game is dismissive and ultimately isn't apt, or even attempting to be. It's overbearing protectionism. I don't like the game because I ACTUALLY PLAYED IT, and didn't like it. That's what it amounts to. My criticism is based on my own experiences. Everything about the game is vanilla. Bland. Normal. Generic. Even the freaking ammo.

I'm actually really enjoying Dead Space 3 and it's not a great deal different from the second iteration. The biggest departure from formula is that there is a larger cast of characters to interact with, which detracts somewhat from the sense of isolation that contributed atmosphere to the first and second games. Thing is though, I don't necessarily want to sit through the same experience a 3rd time. The story hangs together, the staging is good, the graphics are superb and the gameplay is solid.

My biggest worries were whether EA was going to tighten up the resource supplies to try to extract DLC dollars out of me and the forced multiplayer. I'm happy to say that the resources are very adequate without spending any extra money - I guess they just shoehorned the option in there just because some people will surely drop some dollars that they wouldn't otherwise have seen - and I've had no issues playing in single player through around two-thirds of the campaign so far. It's a worthy installment of one of my favorite series and I just don't get the hate. EA left some grubby fingerprints on the packaging but the sweet treats inside are still delicious.

And i say bull**** to that. I've played through DS3 twice now, once co-op and once solo. Did you even play more than one or two chapters? Fighting against the unitology soldiers is in a handful of locations, less than 5% of the encounters. And the necromorphs attack them as well, so, no, they're not aligned with anyone. Many times the soldiers get turned into necromorphs if you hold back a bit. The different ammo was replaced by an excellent weapon crafting system. FFS, the ammo change is such a big deal? Once you get to Tau Volantis it is most definitely a Dead Space game.

I'm actually really enjoying Dead Space 3 and it's not a great deal different from the second iteration. The biggest departure from formula is that there is a larger cast of characters to interact with, which detracts somewhat from the sense of isolation that contributed atmosphere to the first and second games. Thing is though, I don't necessarily want to sit through the same experience a 3rd time. The story hangs together, the staging is good, the graphics are superb and the gameplay is solid..

Exactly. They progressed the story, tweaked things up a bit, but for people to say it's a generic shooter now is nonsensical. It does start out different, and I suspect some people play up until you get off the lunar colony and give up. I can't come up with any other reason for the complaints about fighting human soldiers when that's less than 5% of the fighting.

The different ammo was replaced by an excellent weapon crafting system. FFS, the ammo change is such a big deal?

Yes, the ammo change is a big deal. It's like saying "oh geez, changing health from a medkit-based system to a recharging shield system is a big deal?". Yeah, it's a core gameplay mechanic that forces you to be circumspect with how you use your weapons. Running out of ammo for a much-loved gun and needing to search a dangerous area with a weapon you haven't fully upgraded? That's tension-building. Something, you know...a horror game should do. It makes the gameplay dumber for no reason. It's a cheap, easy solution. Which is fine for some games. But complexity makes a game deeper. Though I will say this: the fact that reloading your gun makes you dump the rest of your clip IS a nice touch. It teaches you to be circumspect with your reloads and you can't always go into an encounter with a full clip. So they did that right. But it's totally negated, gameplay-wise by the fact that you can store up a safe full of ammo that goes in all guns without any fuss or muss.

The weapons-crafting was...interesting. It seems primarily as an avenue for IAP...but it can be fun at times. It does, however, sort of highlight the move away from horror and into shooter territory. When you have the ability to make a plasma gun with a shotgun attachment that does acid damage (yes, even the laser causes acid damage because that's how light works) with extra large clips and somehow both the laser and the shotgun use the same kind of ammunition...you've somehow lost the whole "horror" element. Which is fine for what it is, if that's what you enjoy. But it's not why I played Dead Space. That's before you even get to the idea of having a co-op mode where you have another person gravity gunning bodies into funny positions while you're trying to remember when necromorphs were scary.

Let me put it this way: if a new Mario game came out, and it was the best FPS in the history of the world, there'd still be a bunch of people kinda pissed that it's not the same kind of Mario game, and they just took an IP and changed it to suit their needs. No amount of good gameplay will negate that a game has changed genres. And from what I played, Dead Space 3 didn't even really have gameplay that was that great. Dead Space 3 has, in the time I spent with it, gone from the original, an atmospheric survival horror to just another "dark corridor shooter" in the same vein as Doom 3. Because once your character is shooting a stasis-causing rocket launcher with an underslung plasma cutter, it becomes a bit hard to believe he's a lowly engineer and not just another Space Marine.

Me? I'll go back to completing the original on Impossible, using standard mining tools as weapons, and desperately hoping to find ammo for the guns I actually had a chance to upgrade fully. That's survival horror. From what I played? Dead Space 3 might as well be called Doom 3. Though at least they let you use a flashlight attached to your insanely powerful weapon of doom.

Dead Space 3 is actually a pretty good game. It's like Dead Space crossed with Doom 3 and Resident Evil 4: fun combat and a sense of exploration (as much as there can be in a linear game) and well done atmosphere somewhat weighed down by horrifically bad writing and mind numbingly easy "puzzles". The crafting system is just kind of there. It doesn't really add or subtract anything from the game.

How is this rumor mill any different from the Apple rumors that get breathlessly reported every few weeks on Ars? They feature a an anonymous source, usually from a Chinese website, and little corroboration.

If VideoGamer.com didn't know the identity of their anonymous source then they truly are idiots engaging in shoddy journalism. The fact that they failed to come up with any corroboration already makes them little more than gossips (and no, the closure of a branch office that had nothing to do with Dead Space doesn't constitute corroboration). If online news outlets want to be taken seriously they need to start by practising serious journalism, and the correct methods for handling anonymous sources are pretty well defined (see here for example).

I hadn't even realized that Dead Space 3 was already out. The first two are probably my favorite Xbox games, but I still usually wait a few months for prices to come down before buying. $30-$40 is pretty much the maximum I'll spend on a game and I only buy 1 or 2 a year, so I'm not exactly the ideal customer from EA's perspective.

I mean, it's one thing not to comment. It's another to deny the reality of internet rumors. It's a whole different thing to try and deny that the sales of the game were bad. That and the closure of Visceral is where this whole thing takes on an air of a high school production of Shakespeare.

The only title that has managed to be EA-proof is Madden. There's a reason it's EA-proof. Its audience is amongst the least demanding. Everything they do to Madden they think is okay for the general market. Then they end up being wrong and great games die horrible deaths.

Don't even get me started on Origin. I have two accounts. Why? Because my gaming group got me SWTOR beta under my actual e-mail address and not the throwaway I tend to give to shitbags like EA.

I don't understand this part of the denial. These things are publicly verifiable using sales figures. There already exist figures showing lower Dead Space 3 sales than previous iterations. Are they seriously implying that the TRACKING is false?

Well, I'm going to agree that this statement is still not something he should have said, but at the same time "lower" does not necessarily mean "poor". If one game sells 5 million copies and the next one sells 4.5 million, it's certainly lower sales, but it's not really selling poorly.

Maybe they are doing a major shakeup of the game IF sales were low, but do not want it getting out yet. It is definitely not unusual for a publisher as large as EA to look at two dev's and say "OK, all you are doing is this one game [franchise] and its starting to fall apart. Let's roll you into this other dev and see if this brings in some fresh ideas to the franchise."

If VideoGamer.com didn't know the identity of their anonymous source then they truly are idiots engaging in shoddy journalism. The fact that they failed to come up with any corroboration already makes them little more than gossips (and no, the closure of a branch office that had nothing to do with Dead Space doesn't constitute corroboration). If online news outlets want to be taken seriously they need to start by practising serious journalism, and the correct methods for handling anonymous sources are pretty well defined (see here for example).

If you read the link to the VideoGamer.com article, at EA's request, they sat on the story for a whole day to give EA time to comment. EA then came back and said, "No comment." so they ran with the story. In my humble opinion they are nearly blameless in this whole debacle.

I can understand EA's response in this case. If someone tells the game site reading public (which is probably a large portion of the gaming public) that essentially, Dead Space 3 sold so poorly that they decided to cancel the franchise, that might make gamers think twice or three times about buying the game. It implies that the game is bad (it may be) and so bad that it's not worth buying. EA can't defend itself against poor reviews without looking bad, but they can deny the premature demise of their franchise. "It's alive and well and we'll keep making great games!"

If VideoGamer.com didn't know the identity of their anonymous source then they truly are idiots engaging in shoddy journalism. The fact that they failed to come up with any corroboration already makes them little more than gossips (and no, the closure of a branch office that had nothing to do with Dead Space doesn't constitute corroboration). If online news outlets want to be taken seriously they need to start by practising serious journalism, and the correct methods for handling anonymous sources are pretty well defined (see here for example).

If you read the link to the VideoGamer.com article, at EA's request, they sat on the story for a whole day to give EA time to comment. EA then came back and said, "No comment." so they ran with the story. In my humble opinion they are nearly blameless in this whole debacle.

You're joking, right? A firm's refusal to comment on a rumour constitutes a corroborating source? Bullshit. Rumour has it you run a meth lab in your basement, care to comment on that? No? Aha! It must be true then!

It was VideoGamer's job to verify the accuracy of the source (which includes knowing who it was) and to find someone else who would back up the story or provide some sort of independent evidence that this was true. It appears they did neither.

I get it, people hate EA, but that doesn't excuse this sort of sloppy gossip-mongering.

I'm sorry to hear that EA ruined the series by converting it into a generic shooter. Why would they change things so drastically for an IP that was making money? It's like killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

If VideoGamer.com didn't know the identity of their anonymous source then they truly are idiots engaging in shoddy journalism. The fact that they failed to come up with any corroboration already makes them little more than gossips (and no, the closure of a branch office that had nothing to do with Dead Space doesn't constitute corroboration). If online news outlets want to be taken seriously they need to start by practising serious journalism, and the correct methods for handling anonymous sources are pretty well defined (see here for example).

If you read the link to the VideoGamer.com article, at EA's request, they sat on the story for a whole day to give EA time to comment. EA then came back and said, "No comment." so they ran with the story. In my humble opinion they are nearly blameless in this whole debacle.

You're joking, right? A firm's refusal to comment on a rumour constitutes a corroborating source? Bullshit. Rumour has it you run a meth lab in your basement, care to comment on that? No? Aha! It must be true then!

It was VideoGamer's job to verify the accuracy of the source (which includes knowing who it was) and to find someone else who would back up the story or provide some sort of independent evidence that this was true. It appears they did neither.

I get it, people hate EA, but that doesn't excuse this sort of sloppy gossip-mongering.

I'm glad my post upset you enough to downvote me, but it's clear that you haven't read the article linked with VideoGamer's response.

And you can be damned sure that if the NY Post (a gossip rag if there ever was one) came to my house and said "We have a reliable source claiming you have a meth lab in your basement and we're going to run a story about it tomorrow, do you have a comment?" I would comment.

VideoGamer.com wrote:

The information was provided to us by a trusted source: an individual whose identity we agreed to protect, but whose background and statements gave us valid reason to trust their claims. We contacted Electronic Arts UK PR at 12:31 GMT on Monday, March 4, to ask whether they could confirm or deny that Dead Space 4 had been cancelled, or provide any further comment on the future of the series. This is standard industry practice.

In response, EA's UK representative asked us whether we would be willing to hold the story until the following day, Tuesday, March 5, to provide the publisher with more time to get a response from its US team.

After initially declining EA’s request, we later decided that waiting for an official response from the publisher would be the best course of action. At 16:34 GMT we informed EA UK that we would be holding the story overnight - as per their initial request - in the hope of receiving an official response.

Me? I'll go back to completing the original on Impossible, using standard mining tools as weapons, and desperately hoping to find ammo for the guns I actually had a chance to upgrade fully. That's survival horror. From what I played? Dead Space 3 might as well be called Doom 3. Though at least they let you use a flashlight attached to your insanely powerful weapon of doom.

Well, we just have to disagree. Sorry if I seemed to come on too strong. I liked that they tweaked the formula while, IMO, still hewing close to the original elements. I love crafting systems of any kind, so the weapons crafting as big for me.

FWIW, I soloed DS3 on Hard without any IAPs. That *is* something to watch closely- will they cross the line to where you *have* to buy extra to finish a game. My sister bought the bot upgrades against my advice, but she enjoyed the chatty bots. It also helped that the preorder on Amazon was effectively $20 off.

[SPOILER ALERT]

Just sad Visceral seems to be closing. Would like to have gone to the *actual* Marker homeworld in DS4.

EA is too invested in the Dead Space property to kill it outright. If anything, I would expect EA to milk the franchise for a long time before cutting off further development. At the very least, VideoGamer.com's apparent rumor-mongering has forced an official response from EA.

BugblatterII wrote:

The real issue is the damage the gossip can do. Luckily in this case it was against EA, and the quicker they go bust and stop ruining franchises with IAPs and other moronic decisions the better.

Although I also find in-game purchases distasteful, the industry at large seems to be heading in that direction. EA isn't going bust, but even if it did, there are plenty of other publishers looking to monetize games after their release or looking to get more money with the initial purchase (the best time to get more money) by offering limited editions with pre-purchase exclusives. DLC was the next step and IAPs are next followed by cross-media adaptations to keep your interest in a franchise until the next game title (see Dead Space movies, novels, comics, action figures, etc.). Has anyone else noticed that a lot of new games are seeing Art Book releases?

Shareholders of publicly traded companies expect growth and in the face of million-dollar development costs for AAA games, DLC, IAP, and cross-media adaptations are the new norm.

It implies that the game is bad (it may be) and so bad that it's not worth buying.

Lots of games out there that sold poorly but were hidden gems. You'd think people would learn eventually. I want a damned Psychonauts sequel! One of my favorite games of the previous console gen was Eternal Darkness which, I think, wasn't a big seller.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.